From: office Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2017 2:44 PM To: Phil Dechert Subject: For distribution to Planning Commission Dear Phil Please circulate this amongst the Planning Commission members and make it a permanent and public part of the record. Thank you very much Frank Manasek In order to function in a logical manner every country, city, town needs an overarching strategy. What are goals, aspirations, problems, solutions for the near future? What are the realistic expectations given economic, social, environmental and geographic considerations? The Norwich Town Plan should be such a strategic document, codifying the needs and desires of the residents of Norwich of today. The current proposal to approve a Town Plan (a somewhat modified recycled version of the old one) fails on a number of serious issues. As years go by strategic goals of any town or city necessarily change. The town changes and the world changes. The Town Plan must also change and incorporate the desires of the people who live here now, not fifteen years ago. It is an extremely important document since it must contain the collective aspirations of the folks who live here and pay the taxes. Thus it must be a document of consensus. It must deal with many seemingly disparate issues: quality of life, the environment and how to protect it (if indeed it should be protected), educational goals and the way in which the town wants to grow or not to grow. The latter is a sticky issue but one that is valid and should be incorporated into the discourse that leads up to a formulation of the Town Plan. The TP may also include suggestions how to implement the stated strategic goals of the town. In other words, it may also be a tactical document. But above all it must represent the town residents’ vision for the town and their wishes in a fair and unbiased way. It must not permit profit to one group at the expense of another. And it must not make arbitrary unsubstantiated assertions about what is “good” for the town. However, it is not possible to implement tactics if the strategic goal is not defined, and that is a reason why the State requires towns to periodically update the TP. In Norwich this process has been reversed. The Planning Commission has spent over a year working very hard to develop a complex tactical plan to create what is essentially a satellite town on the eastern outskirts of Norwich. While engaged in this process it neglected to fulfill its mandate to update our Town Plan. Vermont statutes limits the duration of town plans and ours expired while the PC’s efforts were devoted to formulating its development plans. With the seven member Commission firmly entrenched in support of their proposed development it now asks that we accept a slightly modified resurrection of the old Town Plan. The underlying bases and assumptions that led to that plan are now about a decade old and were probably in error or unsupported when proposed at that time. Many of the current arguments put forth by the PC in support of their development plan are simply opinions without basis in fact. But more dangerously, the old Town Plan that the PC wants us to buy into, greases the ways for their massive high density/commercial development-favorable rezoning that will destroy the Vermont that lives along Rte 5. In essence, the PC has first developed tactics to promote huge development and then produced a Town Plan that enables it. Now what about this TP? Town Plans are important documents that affect EVERYONE in town wherever they might live. When some of us began to attend public sessions of the PC we were essentially unable to speak. Whenever one of us would try, in a public forum, to discuss an issue or voice opposition to some conclusion or statement we were shut down. for example, I wasn't even permitted to ask a generic question about an early town-wide survey. There was sufficient outcry against this behavior and the Commission now listens attentively and politely whenever someone in the audience speaks. But they ignore what is said. No suggestion, however constructive, was tolerated if it deviated from the PC’s agenda. Over the past few months several Norwich residents worked very hard to develop and suggest constructive modifications to the TP that would incorporate the wishes of large numbers of residents and, in addition, give some support to environmental protection of our eastern greenbelt. This “redlined” TP was submitted to the PC. At a recent public meeting of the PC Stuart Richards polled the PC, individual by individual, asking their response to the submitted document. Some had not read it. All were opposed to any suggested modifications or additions (with the exception of Jeff Lubell who said he would consider them). Let us keep in mind that: “communities may…(designate) Neighborhood Development Areas within 1/4 mile from the designated Village Center. Qualified projects are 1) Exempt from the Act 250 regulations and the land gains taxes.” [24 V.S.A. 3301(a)] Just who is the beneficiary here? If this provision of the state’s statutes is applied to Norwich it will be a windfall for developers and real estate agents. Indeed it is widely believed in town, and has been voiced by at least one letter to the Valley News, that the PC’s proposals are not really about affordable housing, but rather about the money to be made by developing land. Let us also keep in mind that 300-plus acres may well lose their wetlands, woods and meadows and be turned into a high-density satellite strip of Norwich. Curiously, Jeff Lubell, in a post on the Norwich Listserve indicated he envisioned some 100-150 additional houses over 10-15 year period. Using the PC’s own data, that would result in a maximum of about 40 affordable houses over 15 years. However, in public meetings of the PC Mr Lubell has often said that he wants Norwich to make a significant dent in the 5000 (sic) house shortage faced by the Upper Valley. Something is getting lost in translation and I don't want to buy into it. If Jeff Lubell’s 40-odd affordable houses are the answer then we don't need to develop 300-plus acres. If we need to develop 300-plus acres then the issue isn't affordable housing. The Town Plan and the future of Norwich is far too important to be controlled by the current ideologically pure seven-member Planning Commission that seems to think it appropriate to decry lot sizes that are “too large.” for someone’s house. From the Town Plan’s “Under Current Land Use in Norwich” is the statement: This 10-acre pattern created lots “too small to plow, but too big to mow”; that is not large enough for economically viable agriculture or forestry, but larger than needed for a private residence. Obviously the PC’s Satellite City is the answer. The Vermont Affordable Housing Coalition has just released an announcement regarding affordable housing: http://www.vtaffordablehousing.org/news/2017/06/housing-bond-passes-vhcb-gets-35-million- in-new-affordable-housing-funds/ It ends with: “VHCB makes loans and grants for the creation of affordable housing and the conservation of agricultural and recreational lands, forest land, natural areas and historic properties.” Clearly, part of the goal is to conserve and the PC’s proposals would result in measurable environmental damage. If we permit esthetic, social and environmental damage to one segment of our town then everyone, wherever in Norwich they might live, will be adversely affected. We must always ask the question, “Does any of this benefit the town?” Given the importance of this matter to everyone in town, it’s important that you come to the Planning Commission’s public Town Plan meeting scheduled for July 13 (this Thursday) at 7:00 PM in Tracy Hall Frank Manasek